WHY 


Ik  Law  Limiting  i  Height  of  Dwelling  Bouses 


SHOULD  BE 


REPEALED. 


WILLIAM  J.  FRYER,  Jr. 


■ 

New  York. 

MARTIN   B.  BROWN,  PRINTER  AND  STATIONER, 
Nos.  49  and  51  Park  Place. 

1886. 


WHY 

Tie  Law  Limiting  tie  Height  of  Dwelling  Bouses 


SHOULD  BE 


REPEALED. 


BY 

WILLIAM  J.  FRYER,  Jr. 


New  York. 

MAETIN   B.  BROWN,  PRINTER   AND  STATIONER, 
Nos.  49  and  51  Park  Place. 

1886. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


http://archive.org/details/whylawlimitingheOOfrye 


THE  LAW  LIMITING  THE  HEIGHT  OF  DWELLING- 
HOUSES, 

Passed  by  the  Legislature  during  the  Session  of  1885,  is  a 
very  short  law,  as  follows  : 


CHAPTER  454. 

An  Act  to  regulate  the  height  of  dwelling-houses  in  the  City 

of  New  York. 

Passed  June  9,  1885  ;  three-fifths  being  present. 

The  P.eople  of  the  State  of  New  York,  represented  in  Senate 
and  Assembly,  do  enact  as  follows  : 

Section  1.  The  height  of  all  dwelling-houses  and  of  all 
houses  used  or  intended  to  be  used  as  dwellings  for  more 
than  one  family,  and  hereafter  to  be  erected  in  the  City  of 
New  York,  shall  be  regulated  in  proportion  to  the  width  of 
the  streets  and  avenues  upon  which  they  front. 

§  2.  Such  height,  measured  from  the  sidewalk-line  and 
taken  in  all  cases  through  the  centre  of  the  facade  of  the 
house  to  be  erected,  including  attics,  cornices  and  mansards, 
shall  not  exceed  seventy  feet  upon  all  streets  and  avenues 
not  exceeding  sixty  feet  in  width,  and  eighty  feet  upon  all 
streets  and  avenues  exceeding  sixty  feet  in  width. 

Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  as  affecting  build- 
ings for  which  contracts  have  been  signed  prior  to  the  passage 
of  this  act,  or  for  which  plans  have  been  filed  and  approved 
by  the  building  department. 


§  3.  This  act  shall  take  effect  immediately. 


1 


The  high  building  act  was  introduced  in  the  Legislature 
of  1884,  but  the  bill  failed  to  get  through.  In  anticipation  of 
its  reaching  the  executive's  hands,  I  filed  with  Governor 
Cleveland  my  objections  to  the  bill. 

In  1885  the  bill  passed  both  the  Senate  and  Assembly,  and 
duly  reached  Governor  Hill's  hands.  An  Albany  newspaper 
correspondent  wrote  as  follows: 

One  gentleman  who  lias  devoted  a  ^reat  ainountof  time  in 
advocating  a  new  building  law  for  the  City  of  New  York,  Mr. 
Fryer,  has  not  thus  far  daring  this  session  opposed  the  bill 
restricting  the  height  of  dwelling  houses  for  fear  of  creating 
an  antagonism  to  the  voluminous  building  law  upon  tin;  pass- 
age of  which  his  heart  is  set.  Mr.  Fryer  announces  his  in- 
tention, however,  to  use  his  utmost  endeavors  to  induce  the 
Governor  to  veto  the  high  building  act. 

On  May  16th,  following,  I  made  a  request  to  Governor  Hill 
to  be  heard:  I.  In  favor  of  Senate  bill  KM-— the  new  build- 
ing law;  2.  In  opposition  to  the  bill  appointing  a  Deputy 
Superintendent  of  Building;  3.  In  opposition  to  the  High 
Building  Act.  The  Governor  set  all  three  bills  down  for  a 
hearing  on  Monday,  June  1st,  at  3  P.  K. 

The  New  York  Times,  of  May  26, 1885,  in  an  editorial,  said  : 

A  GOOD  MEASURE  IN  PERIL. 

The  High  Buildings  bill  is  in  danger  of  an  Executive  veto. 
Real  estate  speculators,  contractors  and  avaricious  property- 
owners  are  making  strenuous  exertions  to  have  this  excellent 
measure  set  aside  for  their  own  personal  interests  without 
regard  for  the  welfare  of  the  city.  This  would  be  a  serious 
misfortune.  There  is  in  this  city  a  decided  public  opinion 
on  this  subject,  which  not  even  an  ambitious  politician  can 
safely  outrage  ;  and  Governor  Hill  ought  not  to  be  tempted  by 
special  pleas  to  disregard  the  sober  judgment  of  influential 
residents,  competent  physicians  and  public-spirited  sani- 
tarians who  have  earnestly  supported  this  measure.  The 
Governor  is  to  hear  argument  on  the  bill  on  June  1,  and  since 
the  opposition  is  determined  to  fight  to  the  last,  those  who 
have  befriended  the  bill  need  to  bestir  themselves. 


5 


The  bill  was  backed  up  by  well-known  and  representative 
men — well-meaning  men,  no  doubt,  but  of  that  class  whose 
names  and  money,  too,  can  always  be  got  in  any  plausible 
scheme  for  the  apparent  amelioration  of  mankind,  no  matter 
whether  they  quite  understand  the  subject  or  not,  as  long  as 
they  are  brought  into  public  prominence.  The  tide  of  public 
sentiment  was  running  in  their  direction.  With  only  one  or 
two  exceptions,  the  press  of  the  city  advocated  the  bill.  The 
notable  exception  was  the  Herald.  In  several  editorials  that 
paper  made  reference  to  the  subject,  and  took  a  common  sense 
view  of  the  matter. 

[The  Herald,  April  10,  1884] 

HIGH  BUILDINGS. 

A  bill  has  been  brought  forward  at  x\lbany  to  limit  the 
height  of  apartment  houses  to  seventy  feet  in  certain  streets 
and  eighty  feet  in  others. 

This  is  not  what  is  wanted.  There  is  no  serious  objection 
to  reasonably  tall  houses — say  eight  or  ten  stories — if  they 
are  properly  built  and  absolutely  fireproof.  High  buildings 
have  become  a  necessity  in  this  city. 

The  bill  should  be  amended  so  as  to  prohibit  the  construc- 
tion of  apartment  houses  and  hotels  beyond  a  specified  height 
unless  they  are  made  as  thoroughly  proof  against  fire  as  it  is 
possible  to  make  them.  The  requisites  of  a  fireproof  build- 
ing should  be  prescribed  and  the  most  stringent  means  adopted 
to  secure  compliance  with  them. 

[  The  Herald,  April  23,  1884.] 

HIGH  BUILDINGS. 

We  printed  the  other  day  the  reasons  advanced  by  its  ad- 
vocates in  favor  of  the  bill  now  pending  at  Albany  to  limit 
the  height  of  apartment  houses  hereafter  to  be  constructed 
in  this  city.  Considerations  against  the  measure  are  put 
forth  in  a  communication  in  another  column.  Whatever  may 
be  said  for  or  against  the  proposed  law,  it  is  of  more  vital 
importance  to  secure  fireproof  buildings  than  simply  to 
limit  their  height.  The  bill  in  question  allows  apartment 
houses  to  be  built  eighty  feet  high.  Now,  it  is  obvious  that 
even  such  structures  are  dangerous  to  life  if  they  are 
mere  tinder  boxes,  and  therefore  they  are  more  objectionable 
than  higher  ones  that  are  safe  against  fire. 


[The  Herald,  March,  1883.] 

HIGH  liUILDIV.S. 

The  "  Cambridge  flat "  jury  advise  the  Legislature  to  pass 
a  law  prohibiting  the  erection  of  dwellings  more  than  six 
stories  nigh,  for  the  alleged  reason  that  "the  Fire  Depart- 
ment seems  to  be  unable  to  cope  advantageously  with  fires 
above  that  height."  Had  these  jurors  intelligently  under- 
stood the  snbjeet*  which  they  undertook  to  investigate  they 
would  have  known  that  if  a  high  building  is  thoroughly  fire- 
proof tin;  firemen  will  never  have  any  occasion  to  cope  with 
fire  above  the  sixth  story,  and  they  would  have  recommended 
the  Legislature  to  prohibit  the  construction,  not  of  high 
apartment  houses,  but  of  those  which  are  not  fireproof.  In  a 
crowded  and  growing  metropolis  where  land  is  precious 
buildings  of  eight  and  ten  stories  high  have  come  to  be  a 
necessity,  Such  buildings  can  and  should  be  substantially 
built  and  made  thoroughly  fireproof.  W  hen  so  constructed 
the  upper  stories  are  just  as  sale  for  habitation  as  the  lower 
ones,  and  in  many  respects  they  are  more  desirable. 

[The  Herald.] 

TALL  BUILDINGS. 

The  scare  about  tall  buildings  seems  entirely  without 
reason.  There  will  never  be  enough  very  high  houses  to  de- 
prive the  streets  of  light  to  any  troublesome  extent  ;  and  as 
the  tall  houses  are.  almost  without  exception,  built  with  great 
care  and  at  great  expense  they  are  likely  to  be  better  pro- 
vided with  fire  escapes  and  means  for  extinguishing  fire  than 
any  of  the  buildings  of  more  modest  height.  If  the  Legisla- 
ture, or  better  still,  our  own  Building  Department  would 
compel  owners  of  very  high  buildings  to  maintain  a  water 
supply  on  the  roof  the  tall  houses  would  be  preferred  by  the 
majority  of  persons  wdio  hire  offices  and  apartments. 

[  The  Herald,  July  13,  1885.] 

THE  HIGH  BUILDING  LAW. 

The  laws  relating  to  buildings  in  this  city,  as  revised  at  the 
last  session  of  the  Legislature,  have  just  been  published  in 
pamphlet  form  by  Mr.  William  J.  Fryer,  Jr.,  a  member  of  the 
Board  of  Examiners.  In  this  publication  he  expresses  his 
serious  doubts  whether  the  act  limiting  the  height  of  dwelling 
houses  will  amount  to  anything.  It  declares  that  all  houses 
used  as  dwellings  for  more  than  one  family  shall  not  exceed 


7 


seventy  feet  in  height  on  certain  streets  and  avenues,  nor 
eighty  feet  on  others.  But  no  provision  is  made  for  the  en- 
forcement of  the  law,  and  no  penalty  is  prescribed  for  its 
violation.  Furthermore,  it  is  a  question  whether  the  act  is 
not  impliedly  repealed  by  the  provisions  of  the  General 
Building  law  subsequently  enacted,  which  contemplate  the 
construction  of  dwelling  houses  more  than  one  hundred  and 
fifteen  feet  high.  These  are  points  which  can  be  settled 
only  by  the  courts  or  remedied  by  the  Legislature.  The  law 
is  likely  either  to  become  a  dead  letter  or  to  give  rise  to 
litigation. 

At  the  hearing  granted  by  the  Governor  on  June  1,  1885, 
quite  an  array  of  gentlemen  were  present  to  urge  the  Governor 
to  sign  the  bill.  Addresses  were  made  by  D.  Willis  James, 
Dr.  S.  O.  Vanderpoel,  Thatcher  M.  Adams,  and  others. 
From  the  great  City  of  New  York,  with  its  vast  building 
interests,  only  one  other  person  besides  myself  appeared  at 
the  hearing  in  opposition  to  the  bill,  and  that  was  a  Mr. 
Gustavus  Isaacs,  who  presented  a  printed  slip,  signed  with 
the  mitals  E.  L,  to  the  Governor,  the  same  being  printed  on 
a  subsequent  page  in  this  pamphlet.    This  was  all. 

In  the, course  of  the  hearing,  one  of  the  Committee  spoke 
of  the  shadows  cast  by  high  buildings  and  that  the  erection 
of  high  buildings  deprive  people  of  the  light  and  air  which 
are  necessary  for  health.  The  Governor,  iu  a  colloquial 
mood,  said  :  "I  can  see  very  well  in  theory  that  this  is  a 
dangerous  practice,  but  many  things  in  theory  are  dangerous, 
but  in  fact  are  not.  I  am  told  by  parties  that  these  houses 
are  sought  for.  Has  this  matter  been  investigated  by  your 
health  authorities  ? '' 

"  Only  by  this  self-constituted  body  of  citizens,"  replied 
Mr.  Adams.  "  We  thought  that  the  laws  of  the  great  cities  of 
Europe  were  sufficient.  There  were  105  buildings  put  up  by 
skin  builders  last  year,  and  all  of  them  were  of  greater  height 
than  was  safe.'' 

How  do  the  owners  and  builders  of  the  long  list  of  magnifi- 
cent tall  buildings  erected  during  the  year  1884,  like  the 
imputation  cast  upon  their  property  and  their  work  ? 


8 


At  the  hearing,  the  writer  stated  that  the  limitation  of 
height  for  "all  dwelling-houses  and  of  all  houses  used  or 
intended  to  be  used  as  dwellings  for  more  than  one  family," 
would  include  hotels.  The  Governor,  seemingly  surprised, 
turned  to  tin;  Committee  and  inquired  if  that  view  was 
correct,  and  the  Committee  was  forced  reluctantly  to  admit 
that  it  was. 

The  victory  was  with  the  eminently  respectable  and  numer- 
ous advocates  of  the  bill,  and  who  had  with  them  the  approval 
of  the  Health  Department,  the  Fire  Department  with  its 
.Building  Bureau,  and  almost  every  newspaper  in  New  York. 
Judging  from  the  silence  of  builders,  they  too  were  all  on 
that  side.  An  ebb  tide  always  follows  a  flood  tide,  and  the 
reflux  in  public  opinion  on  the  high  building  question  is 
already  here,  so  that  now  ten  men  see  the  wrong  of  this  law 
for  each  man  who  saw  its  effect  a  year  ago,  and  the  number 
who  will  cry  out  for  a  repeal  will  increase  ten  fold  before 
another  year  rolls  around,  if  the  law  remains  upon  the  statute 
book.  Many  lots  along  choice  avenues  and  streets  have 
restrictions  in  their  deeds  and  leases  which  prevent  any- 
thing but  dwellings  being  erected  thereon.  The  growth  of 
the  city,  and  the  march  of  business  demand  these  lots  for 
other  purposes  than  were  originally  contemplated,  and 
although  stores  cannot  be  built  by  reason  of  the  restrictions 
in  the  deeds,  yet  the  statute  now  steps  in  and  says  that  the 
owner  cannot  erect  a  high  building  to  be  used  as  an  apart- 
ment house  or  a  hotel.  And  the  owner,  knowing  that  only  a 
high  building  will  pay  on  the  valuable  lots,  abandons  the 
project.  This  is  exactly  what  has  happened  in  at  least  one 
case  during  the  last  year. 

The  remarks  which  I  made  to  the  Governor  against  the 
Act  were  in  print,  and  handed  to  him  at  the  close  of  the 
hearing,  and  were  as  follows  : 


9 


IN  OPPOSITION  TO   SENATE   BILL   NO.  287    LIMITING    THE  HEIGHT 
OF  DWELLING-HOUSES  IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK. 

To  Governor  Hill  : 

May  it  please  your  Excellency : 

In  the  passage  of  this  bill  through  the  Senate  and  Assem- 
bly, I  have  refrained  from  opposing  it  through  fear  of  raising 
an  antagonism  to  the  Building  Law — Senate  Bill  No.  109. 
The  marvelous  advance  in  the  construction  of  business  and 
residence  dwellings  in  New  York  during  the  past  fifteen  years 
is  due  to  two  causes  :  1st.  The  use  of  the  elevator  ;  and  2d. 
The  use  of  the  Kreischer  patented  system  of  light  hollow-tile 
flat-arches  between  iron  floor-beams,  forming  a  level  ceiling 
underneath,  which  rendered  possible  and  practicable  fire- 
proof buildings  to  be  carried  to  any  height  without  requiring 
the  excessive  thickness  of  walls  to  wastefully  occupy  the 
valuable  area  of  a  lot,  as  required  when  the  old-fashioned 
brick  arch  floor  construction  was  in  vogue  These  tiles, 
which  were  first  introduced  in  the  New  Post-office,  in  1873, 
produced  a  revolution  in  the  construction  of  fire-proof  build- 
ings. Fifteen  years  ago,  great  business  and  apartment  houses 
were  unknown.  The  possibilities  of  the  elevator  were  only 
then  beginning  to  be  understood.  The  elevator  has  made 
the  construction  of  such  edifices  profitable.  They  are  the 
outcome  of  our  latest  civilization,  and  they  enable  persons  of 
moderate  means,  to  live  in  dwellings  and  get  the  advantage 
of  accommodations  not  to  be  found  in  the  palaces  of  kings. 
The  public  have  a  right  to  demand  that  life  and  property 
shall  be  protected  within  such  structures.  To  that  end  the 
amended  building  law — Senate  bill  No.  109 — provides  that  all 
buildings  hereafter  erected,  exceeding  seventy  feet  in  height, 
shall  be  built  fire-proof,  and  that  law  proceeds  to  state  what 
shall  be  considered  fire-proof  construction,  brick  and  stone, 
and  iron  and  burnt  clay.  Beyond  that,  there  should  be  no 
interference  with  capitalists  who  wish  to  invest  in  the  latest 
outcome  of  business  and  domestic  architecture. 

The  long  and  narrow  shape  of  the  island  upon  which  New 
York  City  is  built,  with  a  park  some  two  and  one-half  miles 
long  taken  out  of  the  very  centre  of  the  residential  portion, 
compels  a  vast  population  to  be  concentrated  within  a  con- 
tracted space.  Without  the  erection  of  great  apartment- 
houses  the  present  population  could  not  be  accommodated. 
High  buildings  have  become  a  necessity  to  the  city.  They 
are  changing  the  architectural  appearance  of  the  city  and 
ennobling  our  business  edifices  as  well  as  our  homes,  by  giv- 
ing them  magnitude,  for  a  ten  or  twelve-story  building,  by  its 
very  size,  must  have  some  architectural   significance.  By 


to 


utilizing  the  space  above  the  earth  instead  of  along  its  sur- 
face, we  can  command  unlimited  room,  and  enjoy  better  air, 
light  and  space  khan  is  possible  under  the  old'  conditions. 
When  any  business  quarter  of  New  York  becomes  over- 
crowded, the  smaller  buildings  give  way  to  huge,  many-storied 
establishments.  So,  too,  the  choice  resident  portions  of  the 
City  will  be  occupied  by  immense  apartment-houses;  and  a 
given  quantity  of  ground,  instead  of  being  occupied  by  ten 
families  with  their  individual  houses,  will  be  covered  by  a 
vast  structure,  which  will  give  ample  space  and  verge  for  a 
hundred  families.  Whatever  may  be  said  for  or  against  this 
proposed  anti-high  building  law,  is  of  more  vital  importance 
to  secure  fire-proof  buildings  than  siniplv  to  limit  their 
height.  An  apartment-house  under  seventy  feet  in  height, 
constructed  with  wooden  floors  and  stairs  in  the  usual  wav, 

is,  indeed  a  dangerous  structure,  while  a  building  constructed 
fire-proof,  no  matter  what  height  it  may  be,  is  secure  from 
fire.  The  Cambridge  flat,  in  which  Mis.  and  Miss  Wakeman 
lost  their  lives,  was  only  five  stories  in  height.  The  St. 
George  fiat,  on  East  Seventeenth  street' was  higher,  but  was 
constructed  with  wooden  fioor-beams,  and  was  a  perfect  tinder- 
box  although  falsely  advertised  as  fire-proof.  One  of  the 
terrors  of  life  in  tenement  and  apartment-houses  which  are 
not  fire-proof  is  that  of  being  suffocated  by  smoke.  Flames 
are  not  as  destructive  as  smoke;  the  victims  of  a  conflagra- 
tion are  suffocated  before  they  are  burnt.  If  they  could  avoid 
the  Suffocation,  many  of  them  would  escape  from  the  flames. 
Fire-proof  structures  are  so  expensive  that  it  is  necessary  to 
make  them  high  to  make  them  profitable.  The  effect 
of  this  bill  would  be  to  cause  the  erection  of  non-fire-proof 
buildings.  High  fire-pr  >of  buildings  stand  as  barriers  to  fire 
in  case  of  a  great  confiagation  in  the  city.  Such  buildings 
must  necessarily  be  more  substantial  than  low  ones  ;  their 
foundations  more  massive,  their  walls  heavier  ;  and  they  must 
be  made  fire-proof.  The  occupants  of  such  buildings  are 
safer  than  in  the  ordinary  dwelling-house.  The  true  theory 
of  the  age  is  that  a  city  can  be  constructed  that  will  not 
succumb  to  the  devouring  element.  We  want  a  prohibition 
not  of  high  apartment-houses,  but  of  those  which  are  not  fire- 
proof. The  building  bill  makes  provision  for  the  future  in 
the  right  direction. 

The  proposed  bill  allows  no  dwelling  on  a  sixty-foot  street 
to  be  more  than  seventy  feet  in  height,  and  on  wider  streets 
eighty  feet  is  the  extreme  limit  of  height  allowed.  But  why 
this  requirement  on  a  structure  opposite  a  park?  There  are 
several  thousand  lots  in  this  city  which  face  a  square,  a  park 
or  a  river-front.    To  limit  the  height  of  houses  on  these  is  a 


11 


senseless  proceeding.  Then,  suppose  a  whole  block  should 
be  secured  for  improvement,  surrounded  by  sixty-feet  streets 
and  avenues,  why  not  allow  a  hi^-h  building,  providing  there 
is  planned  a  sufficiency  of  sidewalk  and  a  setting  back  of  the 
buildings  from  the  street,  such  a  distance  that  no  interference 
with  the  light  and  air  of  the  houses  opposite  will  ensue. 

The  statements  as  to  health  are  based  largely  upon  the 
old  style  of  building  with  shafts  and  dark  bedrooms,  which 
everybody  condemns,  and  with  which  the  height  of  a  build- 
ing has  nothing  whatever  to  do.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the 
streets  require  air  and  sunlight.  The  avenues  run  north  and 
south,  the  streets  at  right  angles  east  and  west  from  river  to 
river.  The  sun  rises  in  the  east  and  its  circling  course  to  its 
setting  in  the  west  sheds  its  rays  in  every  direction,  so  that 
the  shadow  cast  by  a  building,  whether  three  stories  or  ten 
stories  in  height,  is  not  stationary.  The  streets  are  all  of 
liberal  width  where  dwellings  are  erected,  and  will  neither  be 
dark  nor  damp  nor  make  strong  currents  of  air.  From  a 
sanitary  stand-point,  no  dangers  are  to  be  apprehended  to  the 
occupants  of  fire-proof  high  apartment-houses,  either  from 
contagion  or  from  plumbing,  or  from  ventilation.  Our  health 
laws  are  sufficient  to  guard  against  any  such  liability. 

The  great  fire-proof  appartment-houses  already  erected 
are  distinctive,  so  far  as  Xesv  York  is  concerned.  There  is 
nothing  like  them  in  the  world.  We  are  ahpad  of  Paris  and 
every  other  European  city  ;  and  the  French  laws  securing  a 
uniformity  in  appearance  of  blocks  of  buildings  are  of  the 
class  of  laws  Americans  do  not  want.  The  modest  two  and 
three-story  structures  of  our  forefathers  gave  way  to  five-story 
buildings,  and  these  latter  are  oroinsj  down  before  the  ten  or 
twelve  or  more  storied  structures  of  to-day,  until  we  shall  see 
the  metropolis  a  city  of  enormous  structures,  housing  several 
millions  of  people.  Against  the  progress  of  the  age  I  ask 
you,  sir,  not  to  set  your  seal,  but  by  withholding  your  ap- 
proval of  the  bill  to  let  this  matter  work  out  its  own  natural 
course.  Do  not  cripple  the  growth  and  capacity  of  Xew  York 
City,  and  compel  our  citizens  to  find  places  of  residence  in 
other  cities  and  in  adjoining  States.  In  the  erection  of  large 
apartment-houses  vast  amounts  of  material  of  every  kind  are 
used,  and  their  erection  gives  employment  to  a  great  army  of 
mechanics  in  all  branches  of  the  building  trades.  Do  not 
permit  these  interests  to  be  injured.  Do  not  place  this 
restriction  either  on  labor  or  on  capital. 

Very  respectfully. 

William:  J.  Fryer,  Jr. 

June  1,  1885. 


L2 


Immediately  after  the  hearing,  Mr.  O.  B.  Potter  wrote  a 
letter  to  the  Governor  opposing  the  act,  as  follows  : 

KB.  O.  B.    POTTER'S  LETTER. 

HI-  BEMOV8  FOR  OPPOSING  THE  BILL  TO  LIMIT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  BUILIdV.- 

His  Excellency  David  1>.  Hill  : 

Finding  it  impossible  for  me  to  be  at  Albany  to  be  heard 
in  person  upon  the  bill  to  limit  the  height  of  *  buildings  in 
this  City,  I  have  telegraphed  you  this  morning  very  briefly 
my  convictions  upon  that  subject.  I  now  desire  to  add  a  few 
words,  hoping  that  if  the  bill  shall  not  be  signed  before  they 
reach  you  they  may  receive  your  consideration. 

This  City  is  the  metropolitan  centre  of  the  capital,  the 
business,  and  the  enterprise  of  this  great  continent  Upon  it 
is  already  concentrated  a  present  business  scarcely  less  than 
that  of  any  other  city  in  the  world.  Our  country  already 
contains .  more  English-speaking  people  .than  all  the  rest  of 
the  world  besides,  and  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  if  it-  Gov- 
ernment shall  be  hereafter  administered  to  tin-  great  end  and 
purpose  for  which  it  was  founded,  that  of  securing  self-gov- 
ernment, and  security  in  self-government,  in  the  people  of 
each  State,  we  shall,  within  the  lifetime  of  children  now  born, 
number  in  population  a  hundred  million  souls.  This  city  is 
to  be  as  much  greater  than  London,  as  the  resources  of  this 
vast  continent  and  all  its  connections  are  greater  than  the 
resources  of  the  kingdom  of  which  London  is  the  centre  of 
enterprise,  commerce,  and  capital.  I  do  not  believe  that  any 
judgment  would  now  be  counted  sane  that  would  dare  to  pre- 
dict what  is  likely  to  be,  if  not  inevitably  to  be,  the  capital, 
the  commerce,  the  enterprise,  the  influence  of  this  city  upon 
the  destinies  of  this  continent,  and  through  it,  upon  mankind, 
before  the  close  of  another  century. 

Our  city  is  built  upon  an  island.  It  can  be  built  no 
further  into  either  river  than  is  now  proposed.  Its  growth 
must  be  either  by  annexation  from  Long  Island,  or  by  exten- 
sion inland  to  the  north.  Either  will  be  very  much  less  con- 
venient than  to  make  the  most  of  the  space  that  there- is  upon 
the  island  itself  before  such  annexation  or  greater  extension 
of  business  of  the  island  to  the  north.  Fortunately  for  the 
growth  of  our  great  city  and  its  ability  to  provide  upon  the 
island  itself  for  the  vast  business  that  is  being  concentrated, 
and  is  hereafter  forever  to  be  increasingly  concentrated,  upon 
it,  a  modern  invention,  the  elevator,  enables  us  to  build  build- 
ings, with  equal  or  greater  security  to  life  and  property  and 
health  than  has  hitherto  been  practicable,  to  twice  the  height 


13 


to  which  they  could  be  built  without  that  instrumentality.  It 
is  a  most  wonderful  illustration  of  the  effect  of  a  small  step 
forward  in  the  practical  arts  in  reversing  the  opinions,  habits, 
and  modes  of  the  past.  By  this  instrument,  we  now  pass  in 
one  minute  of  time,  less  than  it  formerly  took  to  climb  fifty 
feet,  to  the  height  of  more  than  200  feet  from  the  sidewalk, 
and  that  without  effort,  and  with  far  greater  security  to  life 
and  health  than  was  ever  attained  before.  As  the  result  of  this 
instrument  New  York  island  will  provide  for  the  business,  the 
residence,  the  convenience  of  a  population  at  least  three  times 
as  great  as  could  have  been  provided  for  Avithin  it  without 
this  instrumentality.  It  is  fortunate  for  the  State  of  New 
York,  and  especially  for  the  City  of  New  York,  as  its 
proud  metropolis  and  the  metropolis  of  the  country, 
that  through  this  instrumentality  it  is  afforded  the  means 
of  responding  to  and  answering  the  demands  of  this  country 
and  continent  as  their  metropolitan  centre.  To  refuse  to  let 
this  city  enjoy  and  make  use  of  this  progress  in  the  arts, 
which  thus  enables  her  to  maintain  her  greatness  and  her 
progress,  and  carry  it  forward  so  as  to  answer  hereafter  for- 
ever the  demands  of  the  continent  as  a  centre  of  business  and 
power,  is  to  deny  her  her  destiny  and  rob  her  of  her  natural 
rights  and  of  the  advantages  which  God  and  nature,  as  well  as 
art,  have  concentrated  upon  her. 

This  city  is  not  excelled  by  any  other  in  the  world  in  the 
skill,  the  industry,  and  the  love  of  country  which  characterizes 
the  great  body  of  her  mechanics  and  the  vast  population  that 
stand  ready  with  willing  and  waiting  hands  to  build  her  up  as 
the  wants  of  the  continent  require.  This  bill  proposes  to 
deny  to  these  mechanics  and  to  this  army  of  honest  laborers  the 
privilege  of  building  up  this  city  till  she  shall  become  by 
their  hands,  and  before  those  of  them  who  are  now  young- 
men  shall  pass  from  the  stage,  the  greatest  and  most  influ- 
ential city  upon  the  earth. 

There  is  no  opposition  upon  the  part  of  the  laborers,  the 
mechanics,  or  the  capitalists  of  the  city^  who  have  invested 
their  means  in  building  it  up,  to  any  requirements  which  can 
properly  be  made  to  make  buildings  to  be  erected  perfectly 
safe,  or  as  safe  as  human  art  can  make  them,  against  fire  or 
any  other  danger.  It  cannot  be  pretended  by  any  intelligent 
observer  of  the  growth  of  this  City  in  the  direction  of  high 
buildings  during  the  past  ten  years  that  these  buildings  are 
not  the  safest,  the  healthiest,  and  the  most  useful  to  those  who 
occupy  them  of  any  that  can  be  found  upon  the  island.  All 
that  is  said,  and  all  that  can  be  said,  is  that  those  who, 
through  want  of  means  or  want  of  enterprise,  or  lack  of 
interest  in  the  growth  and  greatness  of  our  city,  desire  to  live 


14 


in  and  occupy  buildings  such  as  former  generations  Lave 
occupied,  are  unwilling  that  their  fellow  citizens  of  opposite 
views  and  interests  should  enjoy  their  own  property  with  the 
same  freedom  from  restriction  which  they  claim  for  them- 
selves. 

For  my  own  part,  I  believe  it  would  be  difficult  to  deal  a 
more  fatal  blow  to  the  progress  of  our  city  or  a  sadder  one 
for  the  interests  of  its  mechanics  and  its  laborers  than  is  to 
be  dealt  by  this  bill  if  it  shall  become  ;t  law.  There  is,  there 
can  be,  no  necessity  for  such  an  enactment.  Modify  the  laws 
as  the  judgment  and  the  wisdom  of  the  State  may  require  so 
as  to  provide  for  the  security  and  the  health  of  the  city  and 
its  citizens  by  making  most  ample  provision  for  strength, 
stability,  light,  ventilation,  security  against  tire,  or  in  any 
other  respect  that  is  within  the  proper  field  of  legitimate 
restrictions,  and  no  protest  will  come  up  either  from  the 
capitalists  who  build  up  this  city  or  from  the  greater  and 
more  important  factor  of  its  strength  and  greatness,  its  labor- 
ing and  mechanical  population. 

During  the  last  twenty-five  years  the  habits  of  the  National 
Government  have  sadly  changed,  so  that  it  is  difficult  to  see 
how  the  rights,  the  individual  liberty,  and  the  dignity  of  the 
citizen  are  any  longer  regarded  as  the  most  important  object 
of  its  legislation  and  administration.  Through  the  infection 
of  this  example,  of  late  years  many  of  our  States,  and  the 
great  State  of  New  York  among  them,  have  become,  or  are 
becoming,  forgetful  that  self-government  by  the  people  and 
the  independence  of  the  citizen  is  the  only  adequate  object 
and  purpose  of  our  complex  American  system  of  government. 

I  protest  as  a  citizen  of  the  City  of  New  York  that  the 
Legislature  of  Albany  is  out  of  its  sphere  and  away  from  its 
duty  when  it  presumes  to  dictate  to  this  great  City  to  what 
height  its  citizens  may  build  their  buildings  or  their  ware- 
houses, so  long  as  in  the  manner  of  their  construction  they 
obey  the  laws  of  the  State. 

If  such  laws  are  to  continue  to  be  enacted,  I  earnestly  pray 
it  may  be  done  wholly  in  conception,  passage,  and  Executive 
sanction  by  those  who  believe  that  the  rights  of  the  citizen 
spring  from  and  depend  upon  the  Government,  and  not  from 
those  who  still  hold  the  once  respectable  doctrine  that  Gov- 
ernment rests  for  authority  upon  the  consent  of  the  governed. 
Then,  at  least,  there  will  be  hope  for  the  future  from  the  con- 
victions of  those  who  dissent  and  protest,  though  for  the 
present  overborne. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

O.  B.  Potter. 


15 


Printed  slip  signed  E.  I.,  handed  to  the  Governor  by  Mr. 
Gustavus  Isaacs. 

INCONSISTENCIES    AND    DANGERS     OF    THE    BILL     LIMITING  THE 
HEIGHT  OF  BUILDINGS  IN  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

A  bill  limiting  the  height  of  buildings  in  this  city  to 
seventy  feet  on  side  streets,  and  to  eighty  feet  on  our  widest 
streets  and  avenues,  provided  the  buildings  are  intended  for 
dwelling  purposes,  has  passed  the  Senate,  and  has  been 
ordered  to  a  third  reading  in  the  Assembly.  The  Committee 
on  Cities  gave  two  hearings  to  arguments  pro  and  con.  The 
advocates  of  the  bill  claimed  that  in  tall  buildings  the  lives 
of  the  inmates  were  in  danger  from  fire,  their  health  would  be 
injured  from  necessarily  bad  plumbing,  and  not  only  the 
occupants  of  the  tall  buildings,  but  also  those  living  in  sur- 
rounding dwellings,  would  be  deprived  of  the  sun-light  which 
was  necessary  to  health.  And  last  of  all,  that  these  tall 
buildings  were,  artistically  speaking,  hideous  monstrosities. 
The  Committee  at  their  last  session  acknowledged  that  the 
danger  from  fire  was  not  to  be  considered,  as  all  building  could 
be  made  thoroughly  fire-proof ;  that  the  plumbing  could  be 
as  perfect  in  ten  stories  as  in  one,  and  that  proper  ventilation 
could  be  secured.  The  only  question  undecided  was  the  one 
of  sunshine. 

The  chief  advocate  of  the  sunshine  business  was  Ex-Judge 
Horace  Russell,  who  represented  the  interests  of  Ex- Judge 
Hilton  and  the  Stewart  estate.  It  was  stated  by  him 
that  a  large  dwelling  or  flat  was  about  being  erected  on  the 
corner  of  Thirty-filth  street  and  Fifth  avenue,  and  the  health 
of  those  in  the  surrounding  houses  would  be  injured  by  the 
obliteration  of  sun-light.  Should  this  apartment-house  be 
constructed  it  will  prevent  the  rays  of  sunshine  from  striking 
the  solid  marble  walls  of  the  Stewart  mansion  during  the 
early  morning  hours — and  may  also  interfere  with  one  hour  of 
sunshine  in  the  rear  of  Judge  Hilton's  house  and  two  other 
houses  in  Thirty-fourth  street,  against  which  twenty  families 
will  have  sunshine  in  the  morning  and  twenty  more  families 
in  the  afternoon,  who  will  occupy  apartments  in  the  tall 
building  alluded  to.  There  is  no  street  in  the  City  of  New 
York  where  the  sun  shines  on  the  southerly  side  after  the 
early  morning  hours,  even  though  the  buildings  are  only  two 
stories  high.  The  fault  is  that  the  streets  were  not  originally 
laid  out  in  lines  parallel  to  the  sun's  rays.    The  health  of  the 


L6 


people  is  a  matter  of  the  Largest  importance,  and  I  would  be 
the  last  man  to  desiie  anything  done  that  would  injure 
the  physical  comfort  oi  our  citizens.  I  would  much  rather 
see  every  practical  method  carried  out  to  destroy  existing 
evils  in  preference  to  making  arguments  to  prevent 
imaginary  ones.  I  would  clean  out  the  filth  in  the  tene- 
ments of  the  poor.  I  w  mid  compel  the  wealthy  owners  of 
the  hovels  in  the  slum  portion  of  the  eitv  to  replace  the  rot- 
ting wood  and  cheap  plumbing.  I  would  insist  that  the 
streets  which  the  aristocrat  never  sees  should  be  swept  and 
the  garbage  removed  as  often,  if  not  more  frequently, 
than  it  is  done  in  the  dean  streets,  and  1  would 
not  oppose  the  erection  of  a  building  where  every  modern 
appliance  is  used  for  the  furtherance  of  increased  health  and 
comfort.  These  tall  buildings,  instead  of  being  injurious,  are 
a  benefit  to  the  people  of  this  great  city.  The  air  of  the 
upper  stories  is  purer  than  in  a  number  of  low  dwellings. 
The  water  runs  with  more  force  through  the  drain  pipes,  and 
the  plumbing,  through  self-interest,  as  "well  as  by  law.  Is 
more  thorough. 

A  few  years  since  the  chief  opponent  of  a  surface 
road  on  Broadway  was  the  representative  of  the  late 
A.  T.  Stewart.  Yet  about  four  weeks  ago,  Ex-Judge  Kussell 
appeared  before  the  Supreme  Court,  representing  the 
Stewart  estate,  and  advocated  the  building  of  a  surface  road. 
What  was,  ten  years  ago,  an  injury  to  property,  is  to-day  a 
benefit.  So,  ten  years  from  now,  Ex-Judge  Kussell  would  ask 
for  the  repeal  of  a  law  limiting  the  height  of  buildings  for 
dwelling  purposes,  if  he  thought  that  the  health  or  comfort  of 
the  people  required  a  hotel,  and  that  the  best  location  for 
such  hotel  was  the  Fifth  avenue,  from  Thirty-fourth  to  Thirty- 
fifth  street.  The  ground  being  very  valuable,  it  would  then 
be  unfair  to  have  a  law  injurious  to  the  income  of  the  City. 
Has  it  occurred  to  the  Legislature  to  what  extent  values  will 
be  reduced  and  the  necessarily  increased  rate  of  taxation  ?  An 
owner  cannot  obtain  for  a  plot  of  ground  on  any  of  the  wide 
avenues  or  streets  more  than  one-third  of  its  supposed  value, 
because  of  the  restriction  as  to  building.  Who  will  pay 
$50,000  per  lot  on  wdiich  they  can  place  a  hotel  or  apartment- 
house  not  over  six  stories  high,  even  though  it  be  thoroughly 
fire-proof  and  facing  on  Madison  Square,  or  the  Central 
Park,  or  on  Broadway  and  Fifty-seventh  street?  Mr.  Daly's 
bill,  which  has  just  passed  both  Houses,  ought  to  be  sufficient 
without  being  impeded  with  such  a  bill  at  that  of  Mr.  Howe. 
The  Daly  bill  compels  buildings  to  be  properly  constructed, 
and  does  not  allow  them  to  be  over  seventy  feet  in  height 
unless  thoroughly  protected  from  fire. 


17 


Judge  Russell  did  not  advocate  the  limiting  of  the  height 
of  office  buildings.  The  addition  of  three  stories  to  the 
Stewart  Building  at  Broadway  and  Chambers  street  is  an  im- 
provement not  consistent  with  such  an  argument.  The  Dakota, 
Navarro  and  numerous  other  apartment-houses  are  not  gen- 
erally considered  hideous  monstrosities,  although  they  are 
not  built  of  white  marble,  with  a  solid  side  wall,  through 
which  the  sun's  rays  have  never  yet  entered,  and  whose  win- 
dows are  curtained  and  closed  through  summer  and  winter. 
When  apartment-houses  and  hotels  cease  to  be  erected,  the 
mechanics  must  look  to  other  cities  for  work  they  cannot  find 
here ;  the  brick-layer,  carpenter,  stone-mason,  steam-fitter, 
plasterer  and  all  branches  of  trade,  cannot  have  employment, 
because  those  who  have  sold  their  wares  can  now  look  with 
scorn  on  those  who  have  yet  some  to  sell. 

The  architect  can  discharge  his  clerks  and  the  improved 
modes  of  construction  become  worthless.  The  interests  of  the 
City  of  New  York  are  the  interests  of  the  State.  May  it  not 
be  said  that  the  present  Legislature  retarded  the  growth  or 
advancement  of  the  greatest  city  of  the  United  States.  There 
is  sunlight  for  all,  even  though  the  buildings  are  twelve  stories 
high.  Is  any  one  solicitous  for  the  health  of  the  bookkeeper 
or  saleswoman  Avhose  incarceration  in  the  poorly  ventilated 
store,  from  sunrise  to  sunset,  leaves  them  with  disease  and 
poverty  in  their  mature  years?  I  have  not  yet  heard  of  the 
philanthropic  merchant  who  has  allowed  a  daily  airing  of  one 
hour  or  so  to  the  sick  clerks.  It  is  not  yet  too  late  for  a  merchant 
prince  to  say  to  his  thin  and  sparefaced  employee  :  An  hour's 
walk  on  the  shady  side  of  street  would  be  good  for  you  this 
summer's,  afternoon. 

Let  the  advocates  of  low  buildings,  only  through  anxieties 
for  public  health,  begin  at  the  root  of  the  evil,  and  when  all 
the  work  is  done  up  to  the  point  of  limiting  the  height  of 
buildings,  then,  if  the  sanitary  improvements  and  protection 
from  fire  are  correctly  arranged,  let  it  not  be  proven  that 
healthy  dwellings  are  injurious  and  unhealthy  ones  are  proper. 
Do  not  make  the  sunshine  question  all  moonshine,  or  pass  a 
law  which,  after  doing  incalculable  injury,  will  be  regretted 
and  repealed.  A  tall  office  building  or  a  storage-house  are 
excepted  in  the  House  bill,  because  it  would  interfere  with 
some  scheme  of  the  promoters  of  such  bill.  Yet  such  build- 
ings would  stand  between  the  sun's  rays  and  other  buildings 
at  some  special  time  of  day. 

E.  I. 


L8 


Let  the  reader  bear  in  mind  that  eighty  feet  is  the  extreme 
height  that  dwellings,  hotels,  apartment-houses,  etc.,  can  be 
built,  while  on  all  streets  not  exceeding  sixty  feet— the  cross 
streets— seventy  feet  is  the  extreme  height  allowed.  The 
latter  height  will  only  enable  a  first-class  hotel  or  apartment 
house  to  be  erected  four  stories  in  height.  In  the  8un  of 
June  7,  1885,  appeared  the  following  : 


II  Kill  AND  LOW  UUILDINGS. 


a  i'hactk  ai.  bi  ii ,rai  htm  torn  BaAMrni  roiwwwtowowm  law. 

A  practical  buihhir  said  yesterday  that  the  High  Building 
law  now  awaiting  the  signature  of  the  Governor  would  work 
a  great  deal  of  injury  if  it  was  signed.    He  said  :  "The  La* 

savs  that  seventy  feet  shall  be  the  limit  of  height  on  streets 
less  than  sixty  feet  wide.  That  is  all  very  well  tor  a  private 
dwelling  l>ut*suppose  vou  want  to  erect  a  fireproof  hotel  or 
apartment-house.  What  will  be  the  result  ?  To  show  it  prac- 
tically I  will  give  dimensions  : 

Height  of  first  floor  from  euro   3  feet 

Height  of  first  floor  * °  feet 

Height  of  second  floor    J|  JeeJ 

Height  of  third  floor     lee* 

Height  of  fourth  floor  M  teet 

Height  of  beams,  flooring,  and  roof   8  leet 

Total  69feet 


"That  is  as  far  as  we  can  go  and  keep  within  the  law. 
Only  one  foot  is  allowed  for  ornamental  cornice,  towers,  or 
pitch  of  the  roof.  You  must  admit  that  it  would  be  unreason- 
able to  confine  a  fire-proof  hotel  or  flat  to  four  stories.  It 
would  cause  the  removalof  elevators,  which  are  a  great  saving 
of  steps,  and  would  greatly  lessen  the  value  of  ground  for 
building  purposes.  On  streets  over  60  feet  wide  an  extra  ten 
feet  is  allowed  on  the  buildings,  and  in  that  five  stories 
might  be  put.    But  this  is  also  too  little." 


19 


WHY  THE  LAW  IS  BAD. 

Immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  law  (June,  1885),  I 
caused  to  be  published,  the  following  reasons  for  deeming  the 
law  of  no  effect,  viz.  : 

It  will  be  observed  in  this  law  which  attempts  to  limit  the 
heights  of  dwellings,  and  which  would  apply  to  hotel,  apart- 
ment houses,  or  other  buildings  which  are  to  be  used  for  the 
residence  of  any  person  or  persons : 

1.  That  it  stands  by  itself,  independent  of  the  "  Building- 
Law,''  and  of  the  Consolidated  Laws  relating  to  New  York 

City- 

2.  That  no  penalty  is  provided  for  any  violation  of  it,  nor 
is  any  provision  made  for  its  enforcement  ;  and  certainly  not 
by  the  Fire  Department. 

3.  It  would  seem  possible  to  evade  its  terms  easily,  in  a 
variety  of  ways. 

4.  The  "  Building  Law,"  chapter  456,  of  the  Laws  of  1885, 
was  passed  subsequent  to  the  law  regulating  the  heights  of 
dwellings,  which  is  chapter  454,  of  the  laws  of  1885.  It  is  a 
well-established  principle  of  law  that  if  the  provisions  of  a 
later  statute  are  in  conflict  with  one  passed  earlier,  the  law 
first  passed  is  repealed.  In  view  of  the  provisions  of  §  476  of 
the  "  Building  Law  ''  (section  6  of  the  neAv  Law  of  1885),  which 
expressly  provides  for  walls  of  dwelling-houses  not  only  of 
seventy  to  eighty-five  feet,  but  for  eighty-live  to  one  hundred 
feet,  and  of  one  hundred  to  one  hundred  and  fifteen  feet,  and 
of  over  one  hundred  and  fifteen  feet  in  height ;  and  in  view 
of  the  want  of  a  penalty  and  of  provisions  for  enforcment  in 
this  law  limiting  height ;  and  also  in  view  of  the  question  of 
the  constitutionality  of  the  latter  (opinion  as  to  legal  questions 
obtained  from  Mr.  Geo.  W.  Van  Siclen)  men  having  always 
owned  land  "  usque,  ad  ccelum"  (from  the  centre  of  the  earth 
to  the  sky),  it  is  a  grave  question  whether  this  law,  chapter 
454,  limiting  heights,  can  be  enforced  or  whether  it  is  even 
now  in  existence.  But  until  these  serious  doubts  are 
removed,  either  by  the  courts,  or  by  repealing  act  of  the 
Legislature,  as  they  probably  soon  will  be,  those  who  con- 
template erecting  tall  apartment  houses,  hotels,  etc.,  exceed- 
ing seventy  or  eighty  feet  in  height,  would  do  wisely  to  build 
to  the  full  thickness  of  walls  and  other  requirements  of  the 
"  Building  Law,"  so  that  the  structure  can  afterwards  be 
legally  carried  up  to  the  original  contemplated  height. 


20 


|  The  Sun,  July  5,  1885.] 

The  act  passed  at  the  last  session  of  tlx-  Legislature 
intended  to  restrict  the  height  of  apartment-houses,  seems 
likely  to  la;  of  little  practical  value.  Only  the  owneifl  of 
adjoining  property  injuriously  affected  can  take  proceedings 
for  the  purpose,  and  how  they  are  to  do  it  remains  for  the 
legal  profession  to  determine. 

The  check  in  the  progress  of  New  York  during  the  past 
year,  caused  by  the  High  Building  law,  is  vast.  Think  of  the 
great  number  of  enormous  apartment-houses,  hotels,  etc., 
erected  during  the  past  ten  years  preceding  tins  law.  During 
the  past  year  not  one.  The  law  should  be  repealed.  I  know 
of  no  reason  for  changing  my  views,  as  expressed  in  June  last, 
that  the  law  is  not  only  unconstitutional,  but  in  reality  is  not 
in  existence  ;  still,  as  the  serious  doubts  can  only  be  removed 
by  the  Courts  or  by  a  repealing  act  of  tlie  Legislature,  the 
latter  course  is  the  wisest  and  most  effective. 

A  REPEALING  ACT. 

The  law  limiting  the  height  of  dwelling-houses  is  a  very 
short  law.  An  act  to  repeal  that  law  is  still  shorter,  as  fol- 
lows : 

AN  ACT 

To  repeal  chapter  four  hundred  and  fifty-four  of  the  Laws  of 
Eighteen  Hundred  and  Eighty-five,  entitled  "  An  Act  to 
Regulate  the  Height  of  Dwelling-houses  in  the  City  of 
New  York,"  passed  June  ninth,  eighteen  hundred  and 
eighty-five. 

The  People  of  the  State  of  New  York,  represented  in  Senate 
and  Assembly,  do  enact  as  follows : 

Section  1.  Chapter  four  hundred  and  and  fifty-four  of 
the  laws  of  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty -five,  entitled  "  An 
act  to  regulate  the  height  of  dwelling-houses  in  the  city  of 
New  York,''  passed  June  ninth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty- 
five,  is  hereby  repealed. 

Sec.  2.  This  act  shall  take  effect  immediately. 


Reader,  are  you  in  favor  of  the  Repeal 
of  the  Law  Limiting  the  Height  of  Dwell- 
ing Houses  ?  And  will  you  take  part  in  an 
effort  to  secure  its  Repeal  ?  If  so,  address 
the  undersigned, 

WILLIAM  J.  FRYER,  Jr., 

P.  O.  BOX  3438, 

NEW  YORK. 


